Archive for January, 1970

Worst NY Post headline ever?

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Masheka Wood

From the New York Post, via Gawker.com: “Ike ‘Beats’ Tina To Death”

It’s so wrong that I laughed at this. Goddamn Post…

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Ted Rall

Cartoon for December 13

Evangelical Christians, and many other people, worry about Mitt Romney because Mormons believe in strange things. But all religions are weird.

Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.

World History

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Matt Bors



Joe Ratzinger, who calls himself "pope bendict XVI", recently issued an encyclical arguing against atheism and outright blaming it for most of history's atrocities. He should open a history book or perhaps look at the current pedophile infestation he has been covering up with massive payments to victims.

The usual tactic is to note that Joseph Stalin was an atheist and thus insinuate that atheism leads to mass killing because there is no morality to it. And there isn't. Atheism is not a moral philosophy nor a political movement--it's simply a lack of a belief in god(s). One can be a strict science based atheist or a new age quack, a libertarian or a socialist. I've never known anyone who's moral beliefs derived from atheism.

Ratzinger:
Since there is no God to create justice, it seems man himself is now called to establish justice. If in the face of this world's suffering, protest against God is understandable, the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false. It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice; rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim.
Whether religious or not, most people would agree we need to improve life on earth. This includes establishing governments, creating laws, doing scientific research and creating art, among other things. Since god didn't deliver unto us the constitution, evolutionary biology, medicine, democracy, or equality under the law since the dawn time, we've had to create them ourselves. Ratzinger finds that "presumptuous." Most likely what he detests is that people have found routes to live fulfilling lives that don't include attending his church.
A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope. No one and nothing can answer for centuries of suffering. No one and nothing can guarantee that the cynicism of power—whatever beguiling ideological mask it adopts—will cease to dominate the world.
That's right. We can't guarantee it as centuries of atrocities have shown. We are on our own and it is up to us to make the world a better place. If we succeed, the power that will "cease to dominate the world" will be morally bankrupt frauds like Joe Ratzinger.

Shirts

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Matt Bors

I neglected to mention it up to this point, but I do have some $5 shirts in the store that could be given as a cheap gift or stocking stuffer. I can get them to you in time for Christmas if you order this week.

Quantum Leap of Logic

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Matt Bors



During the Democratic Debate on NPR Hillary Clinton tried to obscure her vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The vote was non-binding and served only to ratchet up the rhetoric against Iran and served no diplomatic purpose whatsoever. Clinton's vote was a clear move to position herself as tough on foreign policy for the general election.

Clinton defended her vote, saying it was non-binding and did not authorize Bush to take any action against Iran. "I think we do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect," Clinton said.

Sen. Joe Biden (DE) challenged the idea that the Senate vote influenced Iran's nuclear plans. "With all due respect to anybody who thinks that pressure brought this about, let's get this straight. In 2003, they stopped their program," Biden said.

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Ted Rall

TED RALL COLUMN: FUTURE IMPERFECT, PART III

Last week, I pointed out that print still accounts for more than 90 percent of newspaper revenues. This week, the third of a three-part series on the future of newspapers.

Buy Stock in Newspapers, Weep For America

In his book “The Vanishing Newspaper” Philip Meyer predicts that 2043 will mark the death of printed newspapers in the United States, “as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition.”

Not a chance.

Media companies report that their Internet editions are newspapers’ fastest growing sources of revenue. But the Web isn’t why I’m bullish about the industry.
First, there is no Internet–not one that makes money for newsmongers. “Newspapers are growing the amount of revenue they derive from their Web operations,” reports E-Commerce Times, but “that revenue stream is growing too slowly to replace the losses represented by plunging circulation.”

Merrill Lynch estimates that online ads generate seven percent of newspaper income. The firm’s media analysts say it’ll take at least 30 more years before it accounts for half–and that’s assuming current trends continue. They never do.

Second, print is all there is. The pessimists aren’t crazy: A Pew poll finds that only 23 percent of Americans under 30 read a daily newspaper, compared with 60 percent of old codgers. Circulation is down 2.6 percent since 2006, continuing a trend that began in the 1990s. 1.2 million people canceled their subscriptions last year alone! Those are scary numbers. But, Internet evangelist hype aside, print accounts for 93 percent of newspaper revenue over a decade after newspapers committed to online.

“Print is dead,” Sports Illustrated President John Squires told newspaper and magazine execs in 2004. “Get over it” and embrace the Internet, he counseled. But not everyone is ready to abandon a sure thing (albeit one in crisis) for a pipe dream. “It depends on a particular person’s view as to whether the industry is going through a rather difficult transition from which it will emerge stronger, or whether things are really in a long-term decline,” says Rick Edmonds, a newspaper industry analyst at the Poynter Institute.

Smart newspaper publishers understand that Web 2.0 is faith-based. At most, the Internet is a way to promote their print editions. “It’s…possible to get online readers to buy the printed version by trailing stories selectively between online and offline editions,” says Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Information, Society and Media.

Third, some types of papers are prospering and growing. I believe that the business of printing news on dead trees will emerge from the current shakeout more profitable than ever. This will be thanks to three emerging trends:

*Big National Newspapers
*More Small Local Papers
*Freebie Dailies

At present, the biggest 50 dailies (”A” papers, in industry jargon) dominate the landscape. Below them is a swath of dailies in midsize cities (Akron, Austin, Albuquerque). Small town, suburban and rural dailies, weeklies and bi-weeklies, whose focus is highly localized (”New Stop Sign Stirs Controversy”)–the “C”s–bring up the rear.

During the 20th century, most newspaper profits were generated by “B” papers. This is the market segment that has been hit hardest by the Web. Free online classifieds has decimated advertising revenues. Neither beast nor fowl, the midsize dailies’ attempt to balance local, national and international coverage pleases no one in an environment where highly customized news consumption is available to readers online–for free. (Publishers were idiots for giving away their content, but that’s another column.) MyYahoo feeds me the latest headlines from Itar-Tass and Agence France-Press every morning; how could the Dayton Daily News, the paper of my childhood, do as well for this half-Frenchman with a Central Asia obsession?

Amid the falling circulation numbers, there are notable exceptions. The three large national papers (The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today) frequently post circulation gains. Their strategies differ: The Times and Journal offer a must-read experience to those who depend on information for their careers, whereas USA Today is a convenient digest for conventioneers rushing to snag a free croissant at the conference center.

In 20 years, the U.S. newspaper landscape will look more like Europe and Japan. The market will be dominated by two major segments. At the top we’ll find a small cluster, perhaps 10 or 15, of huge national titles–papers such as The New York Times and USA Today will get even bigger. Existing papers (The Washington Post?) will expand; new ones will launch.

At the bottom will be a growing number of tiny weekly and biweeklies whose low overhead make them viable and local focus makes them essential reading. Middle-market dailies in midsize “B” cities–Hartford, Salt Lake City, Daytona Beach, etc.–will vanish or, in most cases, radically contract.

Freebie dailies are luring readers whom the old-school A and B papers have written off. If papers like AMNewYork are short on depth, they’re convenient. These stripped-down mini-USA Todays are designed to be read in under 30 minutes–the length of a typical commute–and tossed. “Our free papers provide young people with something new and different: speedy news and bite-size information, which means they can keep up to speed with a minimum of fuss,” says Steve Auckland, head of the free newspaper division at the publisher of Metro’s London edition.

Stefano Hatfield is the former editor of the New York edition of Metro, a slim free daily given away free to subway riders. “This is a generation who grew up with the World Wide Web,” he says of the papers’ target audience, aged 18 to 35. “It is difficult to persuade young people that news should be something you pay for.” There are Metro editions in Boston and Philadelphia. The Examiner chain has Washington, Baltimore and San Francisco. Chicago has Red Eye. Freebie dailies will spread to cities without integrated mass transit systems as they learn to distribute to shopping centers, corporate parks, college campuses and motorists stuck in traffic.

None of this will improve the quality of journalism. “Ultimately [free dailies] will breed in people the idea that news shouldn’t cost anything, even that news is cheap,” points out media commentator Roy Greenslade. “But in fact, news, done well and properly, requires investment and money. They will no doubt tell us what happened–but news should also tell us how and why things happen. I fear that approach will be lost.”

It will. It’s a trend that began decades ago, when newspapers closed overseas news bureaus and eliminated long-term investigative journalism to cut costs, and started embracing elites rather than exposing them. And it’s terrible for our society, culture and politics. Government and business will face even less accountability than they do today. Democracy will lie in ruins. The print newspaper business, however, will be going gangbusters.

COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Ted Rall

Cartoon for December 10

Cartooning is the most amazing job in the world. Mostly this is because you can work in your underwear. Every now and then, however, you make yourself giggle.

Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Ted Rall

Cartoon for December 8

Before Bush came along, I used to draw a lot of these workplace angst cartoons. I’ve missed drawing them, but I don’t know if anyone else misses reading them.

Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.

Nuke Em

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Matt Bors



If people like Bill Kristol, John Bolton and Sean Hannity had their way, we would have found out that Iran had no nuclear weapons earlier--after the post-invasion assessment of their nuclear facilities. It's not really surprising, but sometimes I'm just flabbergasted by them. They're spinning this to somehow show they've been right all along. Bush is still insisting that they cease uranium enrichment. Apparently, they can't even power so much as an xbox with nuclear energy.

This was defiantly an embarrassment for the administration and pro-war pundits. I imagined them going through all their columns early Monday to see how wrong they've been and just how much they could put a positive spin on it.

Also, CNN has postponed their documentary "We Were Warned--Iran Goes Nuclear."

Maybe They Can Mow Your Lawn

Thursday, January 1st, 1970 by Matt Bors

Mitt Romney has previously showed that he doesn't believe muslims have a role in American politics. It seems atheists may be even more worthless to him. On the heels of his big "religion speech" that included attacks on secularism, Mitt had this say, or rather, not to say:
A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday